At a time when government seeks nothing more than to infiltrate our digital world without any impediment, a group that will stand up and fight against the government where individuals cannot is critical. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the EFF, is such a group.
Its motto is “defending your rights in a digital world.” This is certainly a digital world, and we could certainly use someone defending our rights. Like any cause group, we may not always agree with its positions, but we can appreciate that it exists and resists the government’s efforts.
Which makes this all the more sad, because the significance is two-fold. The first is that groups are great, but their efforts are in the hands of the person entrusted with the protection of our rights. The second is the need to believe that the group stands for the cause it claims to stand for, and its mission is embraced by those who serve in the group’s name.
What if the ACLU was taken over by the cops? What if the NRA was controlled by gun control advocates? What if the EFF was staffed by lawyers who were really social justice warriors? Well, that’s a problem. The opening salvo came in response to a post at Fault Lines by Judge Richard Kopf, in which he expressed no opinion as to the sentence imposed by Judge Aaron Persky on Brock Turner, but argued that Judge Persky should not be vilified over one sentence decision because some disagreed with the sentence imposed.
A surprisingly nasty response, calling Judge Kopf’s post “garbage,” as opposed to “what Persky actually is.” The peculiar phrasing, “actually is,” is a giveaway. Only myopic zealots believe they know what someone else “actually is.” But then, this wasn’t some random twitterer. Nate Cardozo is a senior staff attorney with EFF.
Nate twitted his personal feelings on the Turner sentence, which I found to be vapid. He then tried to flagrantly mischaracterize what Judge Kopf wrote, thrice, to which I responded, “are you really that disingenuous?” The exchange appeared to come to an end when Nate twitted “we’re done” and I agreed, saddened that an EFF lawyer fell into the social justice rabbit hole.
But as it turned out, it wasn’t over, though I wasn’t aware at the time.
It wasn’t until later, after some nasty ignoramus appeared to white knight the fragile Nate*, that I learned of this subtwit, with the usual SJW lie of characterizing my challenge to his feelz as making me the “noted rape judge defender.” Ironically, I had written about Judge Persky’s sentence, not that Nate gave a damn about it.
But Nate wasn’t done with me yet. After being challenged by others for his irrationality, he persisted in mischaracterizing matters because he wasn’t about to let facts or reality stand in the way of his feelings.
That’s a remarkably disturbing claim. It’s not that it’s surprising, as screaming racism and sexism is the first line of defense of social justice warriors, but bear in mind, this isn’t your typical 12-year-old, but a senior staff attorney with the EFF making this assertion. Notably, his twitter bio includes the standard disclaimer, “Views expressed herein belong to me, my cats, and my toxoplasmosis, not EFF.” And I have no doubt this is true, but it’s also unavailing.
But when Nate was challenged to prove his claim, this is what he had to offer:
So those “racist epithets” I “toss around on twitter and [my] blog” consist of . . . gypsy? As in, this? Well, if gypsy is racist, then mea culpa. And what of the “sexist language all over [my] blog”?
Before you shake your head, bear in mind that the social justice definition of sexist language differs from the language used by others. Anything shy of feminist adoration is sexist, because, well, it’s SEXIST!
But as much as all of this raises the question of whether Nate is a liar or blithering idiot, which might in itself be sufficient to raise a disturbing concern as to the EFF putting our rights into his hands, it wouldn’t have been more than another amusing day of stupidity on the twitters, with some self-righteous moron who didn’t know when to stop digging, and had no compulsion to tell the truth if he was even capable of discerning it.
But then came the coup de grâce.
That Nate suffers from the usual simplistic myopia of social justice warriors may be bad enough, but when a senior staff attorney asserts that due process should be jettisoned when it conflicts with his feelings, he is not merely wrong, but a danger.
On its twitter bio, the EFF claims “We defend your civil liberties in a digital world.” Not when your senior staff attorney believes that due process only applies when it suits his feelings. It’s not that we don’t need someone, some organization, to do what the EFF claims to do. It’s that it can’t be trusted with our rights when its staff lawyers are either liars or morons, who seek to deny due process when it conflicts with their emotions. And that, unfortunately, is a problem. A very serious problem.
*A twitterer named Jillian C. York twitted that I was a “fucking idiot” for disagreeing with Nate. As happens routinely, she has since deleted her twit to avoid accountability. But for you irony lovers, she subsequently subtwitted this gem: